Friday Nov 15, 2024
Friday Nov 15, 2024
Wednesday, 23 September 2015 01:28 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
By Dharisha Bastians
Reporting from Geneva
The Government played hardball in Geneva yesterday, demanding sweeping changes to the text of the draft resolution on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council, including provisions relating to the participation of international judges, prosecutors and investigators in its accountability mechanism.
Sri Lanka is seeking the deletion of 14 key paragraphs in the draft resolution presently in circulation including references to high security zones, the OHCHR’s comprehensive investigation into serious violations and the recognition of a Government proposal unveiled by Minister Mangala Samaraweera on a four-tier mechanism for transitional justice.
The Sri Lankan delegation also rejected calls in the resolution text for strengthening witness protection, land return, demilitarisation, investigate attacks on journalists, human rights defenders and places of worship, credible investigations into extra-judicial killings, a report on the Weliweriya shootings, a mechanism to document human rights, devolution of power, address reports of sexual violence and torture and engagement with UN special rapporteurs.
The Sri Lankan delegation led by Ambassador RavinathaAryasinha, took part in the second informal consultations at the Palais des Nations last afternoon on the draft resolution sponsors are hoping to adopt by consensus with the Government in Colombo. The session was chaired by United States Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Keith Harper.
Making interventions on behalf of Sri Lanka, Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva Samantha Jayasuriya and Colombo’s Envoy to Vienna, A.L.M. Azeez suggested dozens of deletions and amendments to the preambular and operational paragraphs of the draft resolution.
The Sri Lankan delegation called for the deletion of 14 out of 26 operational paragraphs and suggested amendments that dilute the language in at least five other clauses calling for action on accountability and reconciliation by the Government.
Amendments suggested to Operational Paragraph 4, relating to the inclusion of international judges, prosecutors and investigators in a proposed judicial mechanism to deal with alleged war crimes, seek to dilute the language to only hold the mechanism to an unspecified “international standard”.Explaining the Government’s position, Ambassador Azeez said the paragraph lacked clarity and was too “complicated”.
“The language should bring clarity while keeping in mind the autonomy of the institutions,” he said, suggesting Operational Paragraph 4 was split into two sections and the reference to international judges and prosecutors removed.
The delegations of Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands, Ireland and Canada strongly opposed changes to Operational Paragraph 4. “Operational paragraphs 4, 5 and 17 are the core of this resolution,” the Swiss delegate said. The Norwegian delegation recommended further strengthening of operational paragraph 4 to include a reference to an ad hoc special hybrid court as recommended by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, ZeidRa’ad Al Hussein.
Russia strongly backed Sri Lanka’s position on “Op 4,” saying it was concerned about the clause especially if the Council was looking to get consensus on the proposals in the resolution from the Sri Lankan Government.
The Chinese delegation also called on the sponsors to look “positively” at Sri Lanka’s suggested amendments. The Council should be wary of prejudging Sri Lanka’s reconciliation and accountability process, the Chinese delegation said. “Soften the language, in the context of changes that have taken place in Sri Lanka,” the Russian delegate said.
Ambassador Aryasinha said his delegation was attending the session to explain the concerns of “capital” or Colombo with the current text of the US resolution.
“The Government is sincerely committed to underwrite measures for transitional justice,” the Sri Lankan Envoy told member states at the informal consultation.
“What we need at this point, is language that helps this process,” Aryasinha explained. He said drafters of the resolution needed to find language that would not polarise communities in Sri Lanka.
Opening the informal session, US Ambassador Harper said the core group of sponsors of the resolution believes there has been a “watershed change” in Sri Lanka. “The resolution should take a very different tack from last time,” Harper said, adding that the main sponsors would “do everything possible” to get consensus on the draft.
Ambassador Harper noted that the resolution must reflect two key points, to be fruitful. “The OHCHR has conducted a comprehensive inquiry and its report contains serious findings, which must be reflected in this document,” the US Envoy said referring to the resolution. “Secondly, the Government has made a serious commitment for change and taken positive steps, that must also be reflected in the draft,” he added.
Harper said nothing in the draft text was “sacred” but these two key points had to be reflected.
A second, revised draft of the US-sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka was expected last evening or over the course of the day today. The draft is expected to be tabled tomorrow unless the sponsors seek an extension as they strive for consensus on the language.
Observers and activists at the informal consultations noted a sharp contrast between the Sri Lankan Government’s positions on the draft resolution and Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera’s address to the Human Rights Council last week, which contained sweeping commitments on advancing justice and reconciliation.
Highly-placed diplomatic sources said there was a lack of “coherence” in the messages from the Government of Sri Lanka that was complicating the drafting process. The commitment to achieve a consensus resolution sprang from the Government’s own agreement to collaborate on the text, the sources said.
Sri Lankan Lawyer and human rights activist Dr. Nimalka Fernando said she had been “shocked” by the approach of the Sri Lankan Government delegation in Geneva to the consultative process on the US draft resolution. “I cannot be certain that this is indeed Colombo’s position. If it is, then that is simply shocking,” Dr. Fernando asserted.
She said it was preposterous that the Government even wanted clauses relating to addressing sexual violence and torture removed. “I can’t believe it. Even references to addressing rape they want removed,” Dr. Fernando told Daily FT soon after the informal consultation last afternoon.
The Sri Lankan activist said the Government was giving the international community hugely mixed messages. “And in the same breath they are asking for trust,” she charged.
Lawyer and senior researcher for the Centre for Policy Alternatives, Bhavani Fonseka, who is also in Geneva, said local civil society was “gutted” about the Government’s attempt to undermine efforts to reach consensus on a draft resolution that reflects the findings its own LLRC and the findings High Commissioner’s report.
Fonseka said the Government continues to deny ongoing violations and requirements for much needed reform in terms of truth justice and reconciliation in Sri Lanka.
“We are extremely concerned such a move will have negative implications on the confidence of victims about a credible process to find the truth. The approach taken at the informal session seriously undermines the commitments given by the Foreign Minister to the Council last week,” Fonseka told Daily FT.
“It seems like the Government of Sri Lanka is fine with a consensus resolution, as long as the resolution has no content,” quipped one human rights activist specialising on Sri Lanka issues.
Highly placed Government sources told Daily FT that the new administration in Colombo was concerned that the language of the US draft resolution was too strong. The Government is concerned that the accountability mechanism it is proposing, as unveiled in Minister Samaraweera’s speech to the Human Rights Council last week, will be derailed in Parliament if it is seen to be a process coerced by the UN and the West. Colombo is also concerned that the sponsors of the resolution are trying to bind Sri Lanka based on commitments made by Minister Samaraweera in Geneva last week, the sources said. “If it looks as if this justice mechanism is prescribed by the West, it will never be approved in Parliament,” an authoritative Government source told Daily FT.
